The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.14 of 20 18 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court - cum lV Addl. District Judge, Khammam, pending disposal of the main CRP, in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Divya Jyoti Sahoo Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri B. Muralidhar The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHIITTY CIVIL Ii.EVISION PETITON NO.257O OF 2024 OIIDER: Heald Ms. Dir,1,a Jyoti Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner iin(l Sri Il.Muralidhar, lcarncd courrsel for responden t.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the c ocket orclerdatedll.06.202,1 in F..ANo.7 of 2022 inE.PNo.'l4of 2018 in O.S.No.146 oi 2015 passc-d by thc Judge, Fami)y Court-cum- IV Additiorral [)ish-ie t ;rnd Sessiorrs Judge at Kharnmarn. By ortler dated I 1.06.2024, the trial Court had dirccted the petitioner hereir-r to impound the clocument i.e,, F,lmiiy Settlement Agreernent dated 14.08.20 t2

3. Brierf fa,:ts of thc case are that respondent No.1 herein filcd a suit ir C).S.No.146 of 2015 against the responc'lent No.2 herein for recovery ol money and the said suit was decrer:d by the trial Court ttide juclgment dated 05.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. Since tlu: respondent No.2 did not comply with the decp, r'espondent No.'l filed Execution Petition in 2 LNA,J cRP No.2s70 or2024 E.P.No.14 of 207g before the trial Court for execution of the decree dated 05.10.201g and in the said E.p., respondent No.1 sought attachment of E.p. schedule property bearing house No.4-2-157/66/ A/2, Srinivasa Nagar, -Khammam, realizaiion of the decreetal amount and order of attachment was passed

4. At that stage, petitioner herein filed E.A.No. 2 of 022 in E.P.No.i4 of 2018 under Order XXI Rule 5g read with Section 151 of CpC claiming share in the Ep schedule property basing on the Family Sertlement Agreemen! dated 14.0g.2012. The petitioner herein claimed that under the said Settlement Agreement, he along with other family members have agreed that all have rights over thc. E.p. schedule property. Taking into consideration the claim of peiitioner, the trial Court had directed that the said Family Settlement Agreement has to be impounded in accordance with law since the petitioner and their family members are claiming right over the E.p. schedule property. i'- '&r+ L!\A J ('R? No ):74 aJ'2021

5. Learnctl counsel for the petitioner had contended that the Family Scttlement Agreement dated 14.08.20.12 is o:-rly an oral understanding between the parties and, therefore, it does not require irnpounding and further contended that in fact, before filing the suit in the vear 2015, the Family Settlement Agreement w,as enterecl betr',,een the petitiorrer and their family memlrcrs. Therefore, the docket order dated '11.06.2024 passed br. thr' trial Court is erroneous and same is liable to be set aside.

6. Per ctttrtrn, learned counsel for respondent No.l had contended that the suit was filed in thc year 20.15 for re(rovery of money anrl the samc lvas decreecl on 05.10.2018 and Il, P. was f iled in tht' r,ear 2018 for execution of thr: dccret: and attachment order was also passed. At that stage, petitioner has come up r,vitlr the application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CI'C basing orr the alleged Family Settlement Agreement dated

74.08.2072. I Ie further contended that application is filerl only to protract and frustrate the EP proceedings and in any event, perlyll of the document would show that rights in the I l property have been determined among the family members 4 I,NA,) CRP No.2570 oJ202a and, therefore, the same requires stamp duty and as such, the trial Court has rightly ordered for impounding the document.

7. Perusal of the record would clisclose that E.A.No.2 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner claiming right in the E.P. schedule property only basing on the Family Settlement Agreement dated 14.08.2012 and as per which, family members have agreed that al1 of thcm have rights over the plot, which is E.P.schedule property. Petitioner can claim right/share over the subject property only when the rights are crystallized under the Family Settlement Agreement and the Family Settlement Agreement shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Trarrsfer of Property Act as well as Registration Act and, therefore, the trial Court had rightly ordered for impounding the documerlt.

8. In view of above discussion, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the docket order dated 17.06.2024 r.i :F ,l::l 5 I,NA,J CRP Na 2570 oI2024 passed bv the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 'fhere shall be no order as to costs I'encling n.risccllaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY AS$ISTANT REGISTRAR i SECTION OFFICER 1 The Judge, Family Court - cum-lV Additional District Judge, Khamrnam 2. One CC to A/s Divya Jyoti Sahoo, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri B. h/!uralidhar, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:06102t2025 ) ORDER CRP.No.2570 of 2024 1d J* \ '{I 4/f: ,.,\Vl .,\. 2 4 APB 2U5 '/ a< ,..) \,),- \'+.i. \ l.lr S t;/\ r * "-= DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION W